DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered.
The objections to claims 2-4, 13, and 15-16 presented in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims. However, new issues have been raised in view of the amendments, see objections presented below.
The rejections of claims 1-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as presented in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims. However, new issues have been raised in view of the amendments, see rejections presented below.
In response to Applicant's argument on pages 11-15 of Remarks that the cited references do not teach the newly added limitations as recited in the amended independent claims, this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejections presented below and in view of newly found prior arts. In addition, in response to Applicant's argument that the remaining dependent claims are patentable because they depend from allowable independent claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees since the base claims from which they depend are not in condition for allowance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“said one of said first and second communication device” in claim 1 should read “said one of said first and second communication devices”.
“said first and said second communication devices” in claim 1 should read “said first and [[said]] second communication devices”.
“if” in claim 6 should read “responsive to determining that”.
"said packet" in claim 8 should read "said data packet".
"said first or" in claims 10, 18 should read "said first communication device or"
“the conformity” in claim 17 should read “conformity”.
“at least one intermediate entity” in claim 19 should read "the intermediate entity".
“at least one path” in claim 19 should read "said at least one path".
"data packets" in claim 19 should read "said data packets"
“said communication; and” in last line of claim 19 should read “said communication”.
“QUIC” in claim 20 should be written in its first instance of appearance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2-3, 6, 16 recite “said communication identifier mask”, however it is unclear whether it refers to “communication identifier mask” in line 6 of claim 1 or line 13 of claim 1. Claims 3-5, 9, and 16 depend from claim 2 and thus also have this issue.
Claim 8 recites “said at least one communication identifier mask”, however it is unclear whether it refers to “communication identifier mask” in line 6 of claim 1 or line 13 of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “said at least one mask generation instruction”, however it is unclear what limitation this term refers to, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claim 14 also has this issue.
Claim 9 recites “said at least one instruction”, however it is unclear whether this refers to “said at least one mask generation instruction” in line 6 of claim 9, “at least one communication identifier mask generation instruction” in line 3 of claim 3 or some other instruction.
Claim 10 recites “the intermediate entity”, however it is unclear whether this refers to “intermediate entity” in line 7 or line 11. Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10 and thus also have this issue. Claims 13-15 recite “said intermediate entity” and thus also have this issue.
Claim 15 recites “said at least one instruction”, however it is unclear what limitation this term refers to, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 15 recites “said service”, however it is unclear whether this refers to “the same service” in line 5 of claim 15 or “a given service” in line 3 of claim 15.
Claim 16 recites “said communication identifier”, however it is unclear whether this refers to “communication identifier” in line 4 of claim 16 or line 10 of claim 1.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US 2003/0204728) in view of Smelov (US 2021/0234845).
Claim 1, Irwin teaches:
A method for managing a communication between at least a first communication device and at least a second communication device in a communication network, said method being implemented by an intermediate entity located on at least one path taken by data packets of said communication, said method including: receiving at least one communication identifier mask; (e.g., [0024], “the source node 12 and destination/intermediary node 14 share a secret cryptographic key (SSK)”)
intercepting a data packet exchanged during said communication, the data packet intended for one of said first and said second communication devices; obtaining a communication identifier conveyed in said data packet exchanged during said communication; and handling said data packet as a function of a result of a check of conformity of said communication identifier to at least one communication identifier mask accessible by said intermediate entity. (e.g., [0020], “The format of a communications packet 20 (for example, an IP packet, TCP packet, UDP packet, and the like) is shown in FIG. 2. Generally speaking, the packet 20 includes a header portion 22 and a payload portion 24. The header portion 22 contains a number of fields 26. Examples of such fields for an IP packet may include an origination field (identifying the source node 12), a destination field (identifying the destination node 14)” [0032], “At the destination/intermediary node 14, a special value 30' is cryptographically generated in step 62 using the shared secret cryptographic key. The special value 30' for the destination/intermediary node 14 is then compared in step 64 to the special value 30 contained within the transmitted packet 20. Action is then taken in step 66 as a result of that comparison. For example, if the special values do not match, the packet 20 may be rejected for lack of authenticity. Alternatively, or additionally, the packet 20 may be saved for further analysis. Still further, alternatively or additionally, an alarm may be generated in response to receipt of the packet 20. Other options for handling and response as needed for certain applications will be recognized by those skilled in the art. Although not specifically illustrated, it will be understood that if the authentication is performed at an intermediary node, and if authentication is passed, the packet 20 is then forwarded on from the intermediary node to the destination node”)
Irwin teaches receiving at least one communication identifier mask (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Smelov teaches:
receiving, from one of said first and second communication devices, at least one communication identifier mask generated by said one of said first and second communication device (e.g., [0003], “One example embodiment provides a method including receiving, by a first intermediary computing device, a first encryption key generated by a sender computing device for encrypting a message located at the sender computing device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Smelov into the invention of Irwin, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of enabling the source node to control what key is being used thereby increasing flexibility of the system and for also for the purpose of passing message securely (Smelov abstract, [0001]-[0002]).
Claim 2, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said communication identifier mask received from said one of said first and second communication devices is associated by said intermediate entity with said one of said first and second communication devices; said handling of said data packet being moreover determined as a function of said one of said first and second communication devices associated with said communication identifier mask. (e.g., Irwin [0024], [0032]; Smelov [0003]) Same motivation as presented in claim 1 would apply.
Claim 3, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
sending an announcement message including at least one communication identifier mask generation instruction; said communication identifier mask being received from said one of said first and second communication devices in response to said announcement message. (e.g., Smelov [0003]) Same motivation as presented in claim 1 would apply.
Claim 7, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said intermediate entity implements a traffic load balancing function, said handling of said data packet including conveying said data packet to said one of said first and second communication devices associated with a communication identifier mask to which said communication identifier conforms, and a traffic load balancing algorithm. (e.g., Irwin [0032])
Claim 8, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said intermediate entity implements a firewall function, said handling of said data packet including filtering of said packet as a function of the conformity or otherwise of said communication identifier to said at least one communication identifier mask. (e.g., Irwin [0032])
Claim 10, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 11, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said first communication device uses said communication identifier as a source communication identifier in said data packet. (e.g. Irwin [0022], [0025])
Claim 12, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said first communication device sends said communication identifier encrypted in said data packet to said second communication device so that said second communication device uses said identifier as a destination communication identifier in a subsequent data packet of the communication. (e.g. Irwin [0022], [0025], [0028] [0032]; Smelov [0003]) Same motivation as presented in claim 1 would apply.
Claim 13, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
generating at least one communication identifier mask by applying at least one communication identifier mask generation instruction; and registering said communication identifier mask with said intermediate entity. (e.g., Irwin [0024]; Smelov [0003]) Same motivation as presented in claim 1 would apply.
Claim 17, this claim is directed to an entity containing similar limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 18, this claim is directed to a device containing similar limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 19, this claim is directed to a system containing similar limitations as recited in claim 1 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US 2003/0204728) in view of Smelov (US 2021/0234845) and further in view of Zhang (US 2020/0344164).
Claim 20, Irwin-Smelov teaches:
wherein said communication between said at least a first communication device and said at least a second communication device is set up according to protocol. (e.g. Irwin [0019])
Irwin-Smelov teaches protocol (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Zhang teaches:
QUIC protocol. (e.g., [0003], [0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Zhang into the invention of Irwin-Smelov, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of adopting a reliable and secure transmission protocol that offers low link establishment overhead without head-of-line blocking for communication (Zhang [0003], [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten (a) in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and (b) to overcome the 112(b) rejections set forth above.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten (a) in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and (b) to overcome the 112(b) rejections and claim objection set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2020/0374229 discloses a router intercepting a request including an alias address from a client, parsing the request to identify the alias address, using the alias address to identify server-side appliance, and establishing a connection with the server-side appliance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE C LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM -5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached at (571)272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE C. LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436